Wednesday, March 23, 2011

One man's "strike" is another nation's terrorist tragedy

Delving into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict when it comes to media is dangerous. Both sides claim that the media is biased towards it. I personally hold very strong pro-Israel views, but I admit that there is truth to both sides of the argument. However, I will say that recently, the media has gone on a complete whitewash of Palestinian terrorism.
When the brutal attack and murder of the Fogel family was being reported by CNN, they put the words terrorist attack in quotation marks. Lets call a spade a spade here. Knifing a family while they sleep is a pretty clear terrorist act.
But it gets even better. Today, a bus in Jerusalem was attacked by terrorists. Guess what the wonderful staff at Yahoo News had to say:  "Police said it was a "terrorist attack" -- Israel's term for a Palestinian strike". 
Honestly. When does blowing up a bus full of civilians constitute a "strike"? How can the media in any way seem to suggest that there is moral equivalence between terrorists and the Israeli army. Its sickening

Sunday, March 20, 2011

Putting Words in Palin's Mouth

Now I am no big fan of Sarah Palin. But it is very interesting to see how the media frames her actions. Today, Palin is in Israel on a completely private trip. (She will meet with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu however). She released a statement that said: "“I’m thankful to be able to travel to Israel on my way back to the US,” Palin said. “As the world confronts sweeping changes and new realities, I look forward to meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu to discuss the key issues facing his country, our ally Israel.”"


Its a fairly generic statement for a Republican politician, and seemingly that should have been the end of it. But every single story I read about it barely focused on her visit, but rather on her potential presidential campaign. The tack they all take is about her lack of foreign policy expertise and how her current trips abroad are meant to boost her image and standing to make a presidential run. As the JPost staff had to mention: 


"Palin will be coming at a time when her poll numbers in the US are on a steep decline. A Bloomberg National Poll conducted from March 4-7 found that 60 percent of the US public has either a “mostly unfavorable” or “very unfavorable” opinion of her.

An ABC News/Washington Post poll released Wednesday found that her numbers among Republican and Republicanleaning voters have dropped considerably."

This phenomenon of media framing, where they not only show the news but tell readers how to think about the news, is a very important theme in media and politics. One should always look at the stories one reads and see what frame the story is being presented in to see if there is a inherent bias in the story. 

Monday, March 14, 2011

Using dead bodies for hasbara?

              Minister of Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs Yuli Edelstein was quoted in a JPost article about the Israeli government's decision to publicize the images of the murdered Fogel family. He said that the use of these images was not meant as a Hasbara policy, but that since the attack did happen; "we can also use unusual forms of public diplomacy" in showing the images.
                 And honestly, he is right. Regardless of whether you consider this action to be exploiting the tragic deaths of the Fogels, the media's selective use of images is very powerful, even iconic. In the article, the case of al-Dura is mentioned, where a 12 year old Palestinian boy was pictured in a crossfire between Israeli forces and Palestinian gunmen. That was an iconic image that negatively portrayed Israel. In general, the image has lasting power and effect, more so than the written word. I just thought that in the midst of this terrible case, we could see how the media's use of, or omission, of images can play in a role in how someone views these issues and contribute to bias.
Heres the article: http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=212176

Monday, March 7, 2011

Media and Wikileaks

After today's discussion in class, I learned something new about the whole Wikileaks affair. The professor said that major media outlets actually convinced Assange to blackout certain names and dates. This interests me because judged on what we have learned so far, it seems the media loves to expose the government's inner workings.
But the major question I think Wikileaks raises is how much information is too much? The fact is- aside from Hilliary Clinton asking her aides to spy on other nations at the UN-the leaks showed that by and large, the State Department was doing its job. Its diplomats were dutifully reporting about the countries they were stationed at, and by leaking the files, nothing too crazy was revealed. All it did was to harm the US and other countries by showing sensitive information. This information was not harmful to the public or something that we needed to know. In this case, I don't think Wikileaks really had a right to reveal the information and I don't think the media should have published the material. Obviously, this is naive because Assange has a vendetta against the US government and the media will publish anything that generates headlines.
But, while I do think that the media should never be afraid to publish something, when the government is actually doing its job, there is no need to impede it.

Tuesday, March 1, 2011

Losing the News

                  In his book Losing the News: The Future of the News That Feeds Democracy, Alex Jones argues that as newspapers begin to fail due to lack of money, we will lose our main source of the news that a democracy needs to function. He is not talking about soft news, but as he calls it: "the core" of news, reports of corruption, wartime reporting, foreign policy, and other important news that informed citizens should know about. While digital media  is great and free, only newspapers hire people to do the legwork required to find out these stories. Newspapers employ investigative reporters and journalists to find out the stories we need to know. But nowadays to make the bottom line, newspapers are slashing their investigative news corps, which is bad news for our democracy.
                 I think that he is correct and we should try to find a way to find a business model which ensures the survival of our newspapers. Check this story out about the environmental risks of natural gas drilling :http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/us/27gas.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=general .




Only a newspaper with investigative reporters who have the resources to pursue a story (in this case, going to the EPA and finding those reports) would be able to give the public a story like this. IF newspapers fold, then we all lose in the process.